dragonagefandomcom-20200223-history
Dragon Age Wiki talk:Manual of Style/Basic layout
Bugs Remembered this when I saw the mod link guideline: Jowan's Intention#Bugs technically has two links to mods; one (parenthetical in the Workaround instructions) is merely a "make debug console input visible" tweak, and the other is the "non-manual" option for the 'Permanent Fix'. Are these discrete enough to not "count against the limit", or should one (presumably the former) be removed? --Yeti magi (talk) 19:05, January 20, 2012 (UTC) :The bugs section of the article is a tad long (there's no need to make a walkthrough on how to use the console when it's explained on another article). As such, the link to the console being visible shouldn't be added. I don't think it's needed to be linked on any bug-related page that may be fixed with the console. The article Console (Origins) provides the link, so I think it's good enough. --'D.' (talk ·''' ) 19:16, January 20, 2012 (UTC) Codex entries I've just realized that some articles have "Codex entries" separated from the "See also" section. I can see the reasoning behind it (since codex entries are sort of different than most articles), but I'm wondering if location pages such as Lothering should have the section for "Codex entries" renamed, since it is a list about codex entries you can obtain at this location, rather than codex entries related to the location. I can't find one a way of naming this kind of section without sound too awkward or being too long. I think (completely unsure) that some articles list them under "Special objects" or "Notable objects", but I don't think the wording is quite right. As such, I think codex entries should be merged with "See also" when they are used as internal links. --'''D. (talk ·''' ) 04:00, March 24, 2012 (UTC) :I think "Codex entries" (or See also) should list only those codex entries that are directly related to the location, i.e. describe it, regardless of there they were found. See Orlais. We have plenty of pages where this is the case. Those Codex entries that are found in the location should be listed under "notable objects" or not listed at all. See Corypheus's Prison - Sashamiri's Floor. I actually am partially responsible for the mess because I renamed "See also" into "Codex entries" on many pages there "See also" contained nothing but Codex entries (mostly on character pages). However, I've never seen any pages with captions "See also" AND "Codex entries" at once. Re Lothering - I would merge "Codex entries" with "Notable items" or rename the caption into "Codex entries found in Lothering" or something like that. Asherinka (talk) 11:48, March 24, 2012 (UTC) ::I think the codex entries for in-game locations should be listed—it's a legitimate list to help people who want to know where to find codex entries since they are not always included within walkthrough. It's also a convenient way for people who just don't read walkthrough. We could have a list of all codex entries in a table, but regardless, the information should still be available on the location page, as it is the case for gifts, notable items, crafting resources, etc. ::"See also" is used to include any articles and codex entries, such as Boots of the Champion (warrior) or Bethany Hawke. "See also" is not synonymous or interchangeable with "Codex entries". I haven't seen any pages which include both sections yet, but it doesn't mean there will never be any pages which may do. Take Circle of Magi for example. Were it not for the navbox (which was added earlier this year), it is possible to have a "See also" section and a "Codex entries" section. As such, we can't assume that just because we haven't seen an article yet done that way, it won't happen. "Codex entries found in Lothering" is a big long. The location pages are not standardized yet though, so that can be discussed at another time. --'''D. (talk ·''' ) 15:33, March 24, 2012 (UTC) ::I'd like to add that I'm fine with separating them, although the section could perhaps be renamed to "Related codex entries" like for codex entries. "Codex entries" found in location could be listed under a different section, but like I said, it can be discussed further another time (for now, I suggest to not change them). --'''D. (talk ·''' ) 15:36, March 24, 2012 (UTC) ::Just realized that it has the potential to create two similar sections, so I'll return to my first statement that I think that "codex entries" and "see also" should be merged as it intended. --'''D. (talk ·''' ) 15:45, March 24, 2012 (UTC) To make it more clear: I think we should have two captions for locations: *See also: for codex entries related to the location (regardless of where they were found; this is the "lore" part so to say) *Notable items: for codex entries found in the location (regardless of what they are about; this is the "walkthrough part") How these captions are called is not so important (See also, Codex entries, Notable items, Notable items: Codex entries, Codex entries found in the location or whatever) as long as the purpose of the caption is clear, but merging them together would result in confusion. As far as characters and similar "lore" articles are concerned, only "See also" should be present, how it is called is irrelevant. In case of Lothering I would create a caption "Notable items" with four sub-headers: "Armor/Weapons", "Quest (or Plot) items", "Gifts" and "Codex Entries". Like here: Carta Hideout (Legacy), but with sub-headers. Actually, we could use such structure for all locations. Opinions? Asherinka (talk) 15:55, March 24, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, I do think the way the caption is named is important: ideally, it should be short and its purpose clear as you said, but it should roll naturally. For example, the current layout for character page uses "Result" for the fate of the character, and while I understand what it means, it's rather awkward. A best choice would be "Fate", but an even better choice is to include it within the "Involvement" section. By now, most pages no longer have "Result", but some pages still do (see Mother Hannah). :The proposal to have it under "Notable items" seems good ("Equipment" instead of "Armor/Weapons" as it would cover accessories as well, and gets rid of the slash). I think we shouldn't have to worry too much about it now (I would prefer to have this discussed in the forum space with a proposal, but we can still change it now regardless—it can be revised further another time), but merging all items under one section (and separated if needed) would best. I suspect the Dragon Age II in-game locations may be different (see The Wounded Coast). --'''D. (talk · ) 16:27, March 24, 2012 (UTC)